Quote Originally Posted by BABY J View Post
Oh yeah ... and back to the creationist topic.

If you ask a believer "is the universe built for life?" his answer will be a resounding YES. "It's too perfect here to be an accident." I find that interesting and pretty rediculous.

Well I say that life as we know it exists because of the universe it evolved in. If the universe were slightly different, life as we would know it would be slightly different. If the universe were radically different, life as we would know it would be radically different.

Creationists like to tell us that God put the Earth the perfect distance from the sun. Any closer and we would fry, and further and we would freeze. Well I would remind those people that, were we closer the sun, we would be more tolerant of the heat... further and we would be more tolerant of the cold.

The universe has been here much longer than humanity... any1 who has passed 4th grade will agree. It seems foolish to logically reason that the needs of the latter was responsible for the specifications of the former. But who asked me - I'm just your local neighborhood Baby J. To each his own.
See, this is what I'm talking about right here.

How come you want to question ONE idea of why we are here, yet don't use logic to see that it is ONE very possible explaination of why we in fact are here?

So in other words, you bash Creationists because they have a cooky far out idea that we are on Earth for a reason. Right? Then why don't you show me how many people are living and thriving in Mercury? Mars? Pluto? Jupiter? Saturn? We have satellites and telescopes that see these planets every day, 365 days a year, FOR DECADES now......not a single damn ameba has been found on any of those planets.....how come? If the Universe "adapts", how come it hasn't in the last 15,000 yrs? Is it on a break? Resting? Then WHY is their idea that there is a purpose to us being and thriving in the only planet even remotely equiped for human life in this side of the galaxy so crrrraaaaazzzyy????

Again, you guys are being just as hypocritical as you claim bible thumpers to be. You neglect to "see" what you don't want to "see".

Don't mistake me for bashing you or your beliefs. You believe what you want. I'm just saying that it's ironic that you guys want to use certain logics to substantiate your core beliefs which ironically are very similar to logics used by the opposing side. What makes your's right and their's wrong?